Is it necessary for the Bible to be inerrant?

[otseng]

Is it necessary for the Bible to be inerrant and still be authoritative? Can the Bible be authoritative while still have errors in it?

Also up for discussion is what is meant by the Bible and inerrancy.

As is the case for all debates in TD&D, it is assumed the Bible is authoritative and is not up for debate.

[polonius]

Just wondering mate! How did you calculate the 6 AD figure from the book of Luke?

The census of Judea ordered by governor Quirinius occurred in AD 6.

RESPONSE:

No calculation is need for the 6 AD birth of Jesus.

"Herod Archelaus (Greek: Ἡ�ώδης Ἀ�χέλαος, Hēr�dēs Archelaos; 23 BC – c. 18 AD) son of King Herod was ethnarch of Samaria, Judea, and Idumea (biblical Edom), including the cities Caesarea and Jaffa, for a period of nine years (c. 4 BC to 6 AD). Archelaus was removed by Roman Emperor Augustus when Judaea province was formed under direct Roman rule, at the time of the Census of Quirinius.

So King Herod died in 4 BC.

His son Archelaus ruled Judea from 4 BC to 6 AD.

Archelaus was sent into exile by the Romans and a Roman officer, Quirinius, assumed the rule of Judea in 6 AD. The first (logical) thing he did was conduct an initial census to determine the tax base.

According to Matthew, Jesus was born while Herod was king (who tried to kill him).

According to Luke, Jesus was born during the census taken by Quirinius who conducted the 6 AD census of Judea following the exile of Archelaus.

Now here is another question.

Why were Joseph and Mary, citizens of Galilee, counted in a census of Judea???

(Read the historian Josephus on the web or at your library.)

[elijahpne]

[Replying to post 189 by polonius]
Polonius writes:

QUESTION: Matthew writes that Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod the Great who died in 4 BC. Luke writes that Jesus was born during the 6 AD Census of Judea conducted by Quirinius.

That would be a ten year difference. Is one scripture in error, was Jesus born twice, or are there two sons of Mary called Jesus?

[Replying to post 195 by Difflugia]
Difflugia writes:

The census of Judea ordered by governor Quirinius occurred in AD 6.

Indeed, Jesus was born during a census conducted when Quirinius was Governor of Syria, but Luke never said it was in 6 AD - needless to say: He can't - but during the first enrolment of Quirinius. The text at Luke 2:1-2 (ASV) reads:

"Now it came to pass in those days, there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be enrolled. This was the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria."

This is the time period when Jesus Christ was born. Moreover, Luke's gospel clearly says Jesus was born while Herod was still king of Judea. The reference work https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000970#h=78 says, under the section "Lunar Eclipses":

Josephus' writings (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 167 [vi, 4]; XVII, 188-214 [viii, 1–ix, 3]) show Herod's death occurring shortly after a lunar eclipse and not long before the start of the Passover season. Many scholars date Herod's death as in 4 B.C.E. and cite as proof the lunar eclipse of March 11 (March 13, Julian calendar) in that year. Because of this reckoning, many modern chronologers place the birth of Jesus as early as 5 B.C.E.

Needless to say, 5 BCE can not be reconciled if Quirinius' governorship is fixed at 6 AD.

Research, however, by Sir William Ramsay reveals that Quirinius was twice legate of Syria in the reign of Augustus Caesar. Quirinius indeed conducted a registration when he was Governor of Syria from 6 AD. But this was the second enrolment, though - not the first. His first, which was explicitly stated by Luke himself, was when Christ was born.

In the article "Quirinius the Governor of Syria" (https://biblehub.com/library/ramsay/was ... vernor.htm), Sir William Ramsay says:

"WE come now to the last serious difficulty in Luke's account of the "First Enrollment". He says that it occurred while Quirinius was administering Syria.

The famous administration of Syria by Quirinius lasted from about AD.6 to 9; and during that time occurred the" Great Enrollment" and valuation of property in Palestine. Obviously the incidents described by Luke are irreconcilable with that date.

There was found near Tibur (Tivoli) in AD.1764 a fragment of marble with part of an inscription, which is now preserved in the Lateran Museum of Christian Antiquities, as one of the important monuments bearing on the history of Christianity. The inscription records the career and honors of a Roman official who lived in the reign of Augustus, and survived that emperor. He conquered a nation; he was rewarded with two Supplicationes and the Ornamenta Triumphalia, i.e., he gorgeous dress of a triumphing general, with ivory scepter and chariot, etc.; he governed Asia as proconsul; and he twice governed Syria as legatus of the divine Augustus.

Though the name has perished, yet these indications are sufficient to show with practical certainty (as all the highest authorities are agreed -- Mommsen, Borghesi, de Rossi, Henzen, Dessau, and others), that the officer who achieved this splendid career was Publius Sulpicius Quirinius. His government of Syria, AD.6-9, was therefore his second tenure of that office. He had administered Syria at some previous time. Is not this earlier administration the occasion to which Luke refers?

Here again, however, we are confronted with a serious difficulty. The supreme authority on the subject, Mommsen, considers that the most probable date for Quirinius's first government of Syria is about BC.3-1 ; but the question is involved in serious doubts, which Mommsen fully acknowledges. That time is doubly inconsistent with Luke: Herod was dead before it, and it is inconsistent with the whole argument of the preceding pages that the enrollment should have been postponed so long after the periodic year BC.9."

The above account shows that Christ being born when Quirinius was the legate of Syria is not necessarily far-fetched - if we accept the fact that Quirinius was legate twice, his first being in the first enrolment between 3-1 BC. which eventually resolves to 2 BC if computed based solely on chapter 3 of Luke's gospel.

However, as noted above, 3-1 BC, is clearly irreconcilable with the year of Herod's death which historians say is 4 BC. Lest this post becomes too lengthy (TL;DR) I'll leave that for another day

[elijahpne]

[Replying to post 199 by polonius]

Polonius writes:

Why were Joseph and Mary, citizens of Galilee, counted in a census of Judea???

Oh that was easy. Luke 2:4,5 ASV says it all:

And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David; to enrol himself with Mary, who was betrothed to him,

If you were to ask again why they have to do that: It was customary during Roman times. Note this article (http://www.biblehistory.net/newsletter/quirinius.htm):

First of all, lets look at a few early census accounts taken from history and see how they match up with the Bible.

The following is a record of a census taken in the year 104 A.D. which contains similar wording to that found in the Gospel:

"From the Prefect of Egypt, Gaius Vibius Maximus. Being that the time has come for the house to house census, it is mandatory that all men who are living outside of their districts return to their own homelands, that the census may be carried out . . . "

Another census was uncovered from 48 A.D. which also records a return of the people to their native land for the census. It reads as follows:
"I Thermoutharion along with Apollonius, my guardian, pledge an oath to Tiberius Claudius Caesar that the preceding document gives an accurate account of those returning, who live in my household, and that there is no one else living with me, neither a foreigner, nor an Alexandrian, nor a freedman, nor a Roman citizen, nor an Egyptian. If I am telling the truth, may it be well with me, but if falsely, the reverse. In the ninth year of the reign of Tiberius Claudius Augustus Germanicus Emperor."

It is interesting to note that these two census accounts required a person to return to their homeland to be registered. The same is true of the Gospel account.

Hope everything is accounted for

[Difflugia]

Oh that was easy. Luke 2:4,5 ASV says it all:

And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David; to enrol himself with Mary, who was betrothed to him,

If you were to ask again why they have to do that: It was customary during Roman times. Note this article (http://www.biblehistory.net/newsletter/quirinius.htm):

First of all, lets look at a few early census accounts taken from history and see how they match up with the Bible.

The following is a record of a census taken in the year 104 A.D. which contains similar wording to that found in the Gospel:

"From the Prefect of Egypt, Gaius Vibius Maximus. Being that the time has come for the house to house census, it is mandatory that all men who are living outside of their districts return to their own homelands, that the census may be carried out . . . "

Another census was uncovered from 48 A.D. which also records a return of the people to their native land for the census. It reads as follows:
"I Thermoutharion along with Apollonius, my guardian, pledge an oath to Tiberius Claudius Caesar that the preceding document gives an accurate account of those returning, who live in my household, and that there is no one else living with me, neither a foreigner, nor an Alexandrian, nor a freedman, nor a Roman citizen, nor an Egyptian. If I am telling the truth, may it be well with me, but if falsely, the reverse. In the ninth year of the reign of Tiberius Claudius Augustus Germanicus Emperor."

It is interesting to note that these two census accounts required a person to return to their homeland to be registered. The same is true of the Gospel account.

Hope everything is accounted for

Because Google is a thing, it wasn't too hard to find the originals. Neither document implies that anyone must return to a "homeland."

First, note that the page you linked to significantly mistranslates an important word. Where "homeland" stands in your linked page, the Greek original has �φέστια (e-PHES-tia), translated by the compilers as "hearth". In a nutshell, this edict is saying that anyone without legitimate business reasons (there are exemptions for them) needs to be home when the census guy comes around. You don't need to be (and had better not be) in some distant, ancestral homeland, but by your fireplace where you put your feet up at the end of the day with a chilled glass of retsina.

The second document isn't even telling anyone to go or be anywhere, but is just a legal affirmation of who lives in the house. She's swearing that in addition to the three people she claims, "there is no one else living with me, neither a stranger, nor an Alexandrian citizen, nor a freedman, nor a Roman citizen, nor an Egyptian."

Together, these documents pretty conclusively make exactly the opposite case that Luke and the dishonest website want them to. The first document lets us know that if Joseph were visiting his ancestors in Bethlehem, he needed to get his butt back to his "hearth" in Nazareth before the census guy showed up. The second document lists the different classes of people so that "they (or their ancestors) are from Alexandria" is no excuse; if someone lives in your house, he or she had better be in your declaration no matter where they're from.

I hope everything is accounted for.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 199 by polonius]

Polonius writes:

Why were Joseph and Mary, citizens of Galilee, counted in a census of Judea???

Oh that was easy. Luke 2:4,5 ASV ????says it all:

And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David; to enrol himself with Mary, who was betrothed to him,

If you were to ask again why they have to do that: It was customary during Roman times. Note this article (http://www.biblehistory.net/newsletter/quirinius.htm):

First of all, lets look at a few early census accounts taken from history and see how they match up with the Bible.

The following is a record of a census taken in the year 104 A.D. which contains similar wording to that found in the Gospel:

"From the Prefect of Egypt, Gaius Vibius Maximus. Being that the time has come for the house to house census, it is mandatory that all men who are living outside of their districts return to their own homelands, that the census may be carried out . . . "

Another census was uncovered from 48 A.D. which also records a return of the people to their native land for the census. It reads as follows:
"I Thermoutharion along with Apollonius, my guardian, pledge an oath to Tiberius Claudius Caesar that the preceding document gives an accurate account of those returning, who live in my household, and that there is no one else living with me, neither a foreigner, nor an Alexandrian, nor a freedman, nor a Roman citizen, nor an Egyptian. If I am telling the truth, may it be well with me, but if falsely, the reverse. In the ninth year of the reign of Tiberius Claudius Augustus Germanicus Emperor."

It is interesting to note that these two census accounts required a person to return to their homeland to be registered. The same is true of the Gospel account.

QUESTION: In which country and at what time were these 2 census'????
Hope everything is accounted for

RESPONSE:

Unfortunately not the facts of history in Jesus time. We are talking about the 6 AD Census of Judea by Quirinius.

Please quote your source.

However,

In his Anchor Bible commentary Catholic scholar J. A. Fitzmyer lists other historical mistakes in Luke's writing and offers the most definitive argument against Ramsey's claims about the famous Christmas census.

There is no record of Caesar Augustus' decree that "all the world should be enrolled" (Lk. 2:1). The Romans kept extremely detailed records of such events. Not only is Luke's census not in these records, it goes against all that we know of Roman economic history. Roman documents show that taxation was done by the various governors at the provincial level. As we shall see later, the property tax was collected on site by travelling assessors, thus making unnecessary Joseph's journey away from what little property he must have owned.



And as for Matthew's famous "virgin birth" story of Jesus, the prophecy cited in Isaiah 7:14. But this doesn't say Mary was a virgin. The term used is "almah" which is a young woman, virgin or not. It's used frequently in the Bible. On the other hand the term "betulah" means a strict virgin. But it's nicer to have a miracle!

[Difflugia]

...the Greek original has �φέστια (e-PHES-tia), translated by the compilers as "hearth".

In case anyone wants to double-check the translators:

[elijahpne]

[Replying to post 202 by Difflugia]

Difflugia writes:

In a nutshell, this edict is saying that anyone without legitimate business reasons (there are exemptions for them) needs to be home when the census guy comes around. You don't need to be (and had better not be) in some distant, ancestral homeland

That's precisely the point mate: Anyone in that Roman world at that time could be "in some distant, ancestral homeland" when census time comes around. If he were, as you had implied unwittingly, he'd better get packing and travel back to that distant, ancestral homeland. He can not register in the city where he's at right now away from his homeland. He can get a signed permit ONLY if his presence was deemed crucial to the operation of the city ( http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/greek/census.html ). That's what Joseph - a carpenter, whose presence in Galilee was obviously not critical - did (Luke 2:3-5). You're, in effect, confirming the biblical record mate. I hereby reproduce in full that edict of 104 AD, I alluded to above:

The census by household having begun, it is essential that all those who are away from their nomes be summoned to return to their own hearths so that they may perform the customary business of registration and apply themselves to the cultivation which concerns them. Knowing, however, that some of the people from the countryside are required by our city, I desire all those who think they have a satisfactory reason for remaining here to register themselves before . . . Festus, the Cavalry Commander, whom I have appointed for this purpose, from whom those who have shown their presence to be necessary shall receive signed permits in accordance with this edict up to the 30th of the present month E . . .

The edict, as you will notice, makes allowance for the distinct possibility that some Roman subjects could be "in some distant, ancestral homeland" ( as you have predicted ) during the time of the census, in which case he could get a signed permit from an authorized officer if his presence is indispensable to the city. But would the signed permit constitute a registration. It doesn't appear so. It could just be a sworn statement where the bearer promises to undertake the registration at some future time when his presence in the city is no longer required.

If one is in his homeland during the time of the census then it will just be nice and cozy for him just as you have graphically illustrated.

As to why this was to be a "homeland" registration, Benson's Commentary offers this reason ( https://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/luke/2.htm ):

"When the census was made in any country, the inhabitants were obliged to attend in the cities to which they belonged, Livy, 50. 42. c. 10. The reason was without a precaution of this kind, the census would have been excessively tedious, and people who were abroad might have been omitted, or registered among the inhabitants of other cities, where they would not have been found afterward, or they might have been enrolled twice, which would have produced confusion in the registers."

Again, this vouch for a homeland registration so as to eliminate the long and wearisome paperwork and, also, not to omit people "who were abroad" at the time of registration.

The second document isn't even telling anyone to go or be anywhere, but is just a legal affirmation of who lives in the house. She's swearing that in addition to the three people she claims, "there is no one else living with me, neither a stranger, nor an Alexandrian citizen, nor a freedman, nor a Roman citizen, nor an Egyptian."

Why would Thermoutharion, in the census of 48 AD, make a legal affirmation of that sort? Obviously, because it was census time. Do all households need to do that? Probably not. An ordinary household of modest means could not be bothered with that or else the city registry would be overwhelmed with unnecessary paperwork - and paper was not even commonplace during that period. He's probably known to employ workers from other lands and to affirm he had complied with the edict he made that legal affirmation. That was the logical reason. I am at a loss you would think otherwise. This testifies to the fact that sending workers home to their homelands to register was the standard practice during census - a testament to the accuracy of the biblical record.

In the case of Judea - remember we were talking about the census in Egypt - a slight alteration needs to be done. Again Benson's Commentary sheds light on this:

In the dominions of Herod, however, probably by his order, a small alteration seems to have been made in the method of executing the census. For instead of the people being directed to appear, as usual, in the cities where they resided, or to whose jurisdiction the places of their abode belonged, they were ordered to appeal according to their families; every one in his native city, or the place where his paternal inheritance lay, to be there enrolled; a circumstance wisely ordered by Providence to verify the truth of ancient prophecies; for thus the parents of Christ were providentially brought to Bethlehem, the place where the Messiah was to be born, without leaving any room to suspect them of artifice and design. And thus, also, by their coming to be registered among the subjects of the Roman empire, the subjection of the Jews to the Romans was very remarkably manifested.

Note the part in blue especially where it says: "the parents of Christ were providentially brought to Bethlehem, the place where the Messiah was to be born, without leaving any room to suspect them of artifice and design". THAT WAS A VERY IMPORTANT POINT. Joseph knew that Mary's child was the Messiah (Matthew 1:20) and so had to be born in Bethlehem as the prophet Micah has prophesied (Micah 5:2). That was why he refrained from having intercourse with Mary until Jesus was born. At Matthew 1:25, the KJV Bible says: "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."

Joseph was in Nazareth of Galilee during the time of the census - presumably that's where he worked and so had a home there. So he had to go back to Judea, for he was of the tribe of Judah (Matthew 1:16) and presumably that was his district or place of extraction, specifically Bethlehem. But If Joseph was merely to return to Bethlehem, without legitimate reason, merely to force the issue that the Messiah should be born in Bethlehem then he would be accused of artifice and design. God had to intervene: He saw to it that Caesar Augustus made this registration law.

There is the probability, however, that Joseph was, for all intents and purposes, considered a resident of Nazareth and did not have a home in Bethlehem of Judea ( Mary gave birth to Jesus in an inn and not a house ) , although he was of the tribe of Judah. Alford in his Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary explains :

There is a mixture here of Roman and Jewish customs, which is not at all improbable, considering the circumstances. In the Roman census, men, women, and children were all obliged to go and be enrolled. Dion. Hal. iv. 15, ἃπαντας ἐκέλευσε (ὁ Τύλλιος) τοὺς ὁμοπάγους κατὰ κεφαλὴν ὡρισμένον νόμισμά τι συνεισφέρειν, ἕτερον μέν τι τοὺς ἄνδρας, ἕτερον δέ τι τὰς γυναῖκας, ἄλλο δέ τι τοὺς ἀνήβους. But then this census was made at their dwelling-place, not at that of their extraction. The latter practice springs from the Jewish genealogical habits, and its adoption in this case speaks strongly for the accuracy of the chronology. If this enrolment was by order of Augustus, and for the whole empire, it of course would be made so as to include all, after the Roman manner: but inasmuch as it was made under the Jewish king Herod, it was done after the Jewish manner, in taking this account of each at his own place of extraction." - https://biblehub.com/commentaries/alford/luke/2.htm

Yes Google is a thing - in fact, a great treasure trove. But you should not merely scrape the surface but dig deeper, in fact several layers deep, to get the real treasure.
Pr 2:4, 5 If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.

[Difflugia]

That's precisely the point mate: Anyone in that Roman world at that time could be "in some distant, ancestral homeland" when census time comes around. If he were, as you had implied unwittingly, he'd better get packing and travel back to that distant, ancestral homeland.

Not homeland, but home, meaning current residence. The website you linked mistranslated the word.

He can not register in the city where he's at right now away from his homeland. He can get a signed permit ONLY if his presence was deemed crucial to the operation of the city ( http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/greek/census.html ). That's what Joseph - a carpenter, whose presence in Galilee was obviously not critical - did (Luke 2:3-5).

Not homeland, but home. According to Luke, Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth. That's where their home was.

Joseph was in Nazareth of Galilee during the time of the census - presumably that's where he worked and so had a home there.

Yes. Exactly.

[elijahpne]

[Replying to post 203 by polonius]

Unfortunately not the facts of history in Jesus time. We are talking about the 6 AD Census of Judea by Quirinius.

I had thought I should not write a post again on this topic. But I just had to write this, I hope is the last, one.

The census in 6 AD was the second registration. Luke was saying Jesus' birth occurred in the "first registration" (Luke 2:2).

Ever wonder why Luke called it "the first registration". He knew there was a subsequent one. He would know because he wrote his gospel first then the book of Acts where he said in Acts 5:37:

"Judas the Gal·i·leʹan rose in the days of the registration [ "taxing", KJV; "enrolment", ASV; i.e., the second registration of 6 AD ] , and he drew off people after him"

Even Sir William Ramsay recognize this as such when he said:

"We observe that Luke knew about more than one "enrolment" (or census to use the strict Roman term). In ii. 2 he speaks of a certain census as "the first". In Acts v. 37 he mentions "the census, " i.e., the great census meaning the epoch-making census taken about A. D. 7, when Judea had just been incorporated in the Roman Empire as part of the province of Syria." - Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? p. 127

Elsewhere in this thread, you questioned the accuracy of Matthew's and Luke's assertion that the Christ was born during the reign of Herod the Great who, you said, died in 4 B.C. That is not correct.

More recent research shows that Herod died somewhere after 2 B.C. Example:

"Therefore, a more probable date of birth for Jesus is in late 2 BCE, making him about 30-1/2 years old at his baptism, and implying that Herod died in the 1st quarter of 1 BCE." - Novum Testamentum p. 19, Andrew Steinmann

Interestingly, ancient Church Fathers, especially the most important authorities of Biblical history, came up with the same conclusion that Jesus was born sometime between 3 and 2 B.C. as the following quote from that monumental work Handbook of Biblical Chronology states:

"There is a remarkable consensus of the nine most important authorities [ i.e., Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, and four others ] for the year 3/2 B.C. So, from this evidence, the date of the nativity of Jesus is to be sought within the period of 3/2 B.C." - Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, §500, p. 291

And last but it the least, the greatest authority of them all, Luke, a historian of first rank, his chronology in God's Word - Luke 3:1, 23 - resolves to the same year, 2 BCE.

With this post I rest my case.

[JehovahsWitness]

... My main point is arguing it is not necessary to believe the Bible is inerrant.

When you say "the bible" I take it you mean the copies of the bible (rather than the original inspired writings). With that I agree, the copies (and various translations) of the bible just have to reflect the evidence based knowledge of of the available manuscripts and languages at the time they are produced, in short follow solid principles of translation.

The notion of "inerrant copies" leads to 1611 in 2025.